17 



Mr. DOOLITTLE. I am concerned with some of the findings in this 

 bill, and the testimony we have heard so far raises those issues. 

 For example, finding No. 11: At the current rate of logging in the 

 Sequoia National Forest, it is estimated that all of the ecologically 

 significant unprotected forest would be destroyed within 7 to 8 

 years. 



Well, we have heard testimony that they are not cutting any of 

 these giant sequoias. So I would like to just suggest to the author 

 that maybe you take a look at that as you examine suggestions 

 made by the committee. 



Second, the point in finding No. 12: Removal of timber from the 

 Sequoia National Forest is done at a net loss to the U.S. Treasury 

 of more than $8 million annusilly over and above the amounts ap- 

 propriated annually by the Congress for the administration and op- 

 eration of the forests. 



The information I have says that there are no below-cost timber 

 sales on this forest, so perhaps Dr. Jack Ward Thomas, when he 

 testifies, will clarify that issue. 



We keep hearing repeated in these sorts of hearings in this com- 

 mittee and in another on which I sit this idea about we are logging 

 trees beyond the sustainable yield. As far as I know, that is not the 

 case. People who are in the business of logging trees want to make 

 sure they are in business down the road, and in order to do that, 

 they have to have trees to log. So I would challenge that finding, 

 finding 14, sind ask for further information on that. 



The cost is £m issue. The CBO, I think we have in here some 

 place, says that it is going to cost a net cost of $9 million over 5 

 years, but then the Forest Service, in a document I have, is saying 

 the total cost to implement this act will range from $24 million to 

 $60 million per year. So I think we need to pin that down. 



In my own mind, as one Representative, I cannot justify the U.S. 

 borrowing money to buy more land. I mean, I frankly think it is 

 outrageous the amount that we have now, and that we are con- 

 stantly adding to this base. So that is a particular problem I have. 



On the specifics of the scientific advisory panel that is created, 

 I think as far as it goes, that is good, but I would just suggest that 

 we might want to include therein someone, a scientist knowledge- 

 able in fire management, because I think the potential for fire in 

 this sort of situation being created here would be a key concern. 



Also, I think we ought to have someone included on that panel 

 who would give some input with reference to recreation. I am not 

 clear to what extent recreation will be permitted in this bill. The 

 bill talks about restoring things to the natural state. There is some 

 reference I see in the bill to hunting and fishing being allowed, but 

 it also can be restricted under the terms of that bill. 



But I do not know. Beyond hunting and fishing, are there other 

 types of recreation that are to be allowed? If anybody wants to at- 

 tempt to answer any of those questions, that would be fine, or if 

 there is subsequent technical testimony that is coming forth, I 

 would welcome that, as well. 



Mr. Thomas of California. Well, Mr. Doolittle, the recreational 

 activities are going to be greatly circumscribed in terms of a priori 

 determining which areas you are going to be able to move through, 

 even precluding those areas that most people who are in the busi- 



